Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

cn-subscribe I remember watching this as a pre-teen and thinking it was totally cool. As a fond childhood memory, I ordered it on DVD recently when I found it at a good discount.The concept is as cool as I remembered, but from an adult's viewpoint it has lots of flaws. The hysterics of both the female leads are way over the top. There are some fairly blatant continuity errors and visible film crew mistakes.Also, do the fabulously wealthy really live in high-rise apartments where the elevator opens directly into their living room? And do the fabulously wealthy live in mansions without any security, then invite strangers in for coffee without knowing who they are?

Thomas Lindholm I was 10 years old in 1972, and absolutely fascinated by the occult/horror genre. As a faithful viewer of the TV series "Dark Shadows", "The Sixth Sense" and "Night Gallery", I was quite used to watching stories about ghosts, vampires, werewolves and the like. But nothing had prepared me for the night I accidentally tuned in to this Movie Of The Week. Those first couple of scenes featuring the dead guy with only the whites of his eyes scared me more than anything I'd ever seen. I honestly don't remember much else about this movie—I may not even have watched all of it. But still today, more than 30 years later, I get goosebumps just thinking about those scary white eyes!

Reginald D. Garrard Peter Haskell, formerly of the short lived "Bracken's World," starred in this pilot for a proposed series about a young man that is able to see "the dearly departed". He is called to investigate the mysterious death of the brother of loony Sharon Farrell (in an Emmy-worthy performance) and must contend with the other members of her family, sister Barbara Rush and her smarmy husband, Bradford Dillman.The movie has its moments, especially when Haskell's visions come out of the blue and surprise the viewer. Also, the "borrowed" Mancini score is tense-filled and goose-bump inducing.Spoiler: The highlight is when the reserved Rush becomes unglued, revealing her true nature.Though, it's not a great film, it does hold the interest for 90 minutes and that's all one should expect from a TV-movie.

Christopher T. Chase Another TV movie that was an intended pilot for a series. Falling short of the "keeper" mark in terms of what the networks craved at the time, "Charles" still contains a wonderfully restrained performance by the dependable Peter Haskell as the titular hero, an inheritor of powers of ESP and clairvoyance that runs in the family. Of course, on the other hand, you have Sharon Farrell as a young woman whose either going insane (something she excelled at playing) or who definitely needs Charles' supernatural help. Add Barbara Rush and Joan Bennett into the mix, and you either have a campy hoot-fest of OTT emoting, or something so irritating, you may turn away and actually watch that rerun of DUMB AND DUMBER for the twenty-sixth time.What saves it ultimately is capable direction, a storyline that does keep things interesting, (not to mention pre-dating Stephen King's THE DEAD ZONE by over a decade, which contains some striking similarities), and some frighteningly taut setpieces that, though dated, still work to some extent if you watch it with the lights out.Hard to find, but worth it when you do, if only for sentimental reasons, (like when they used to make REALLY good or at least entertaining 90-minute TV extravaganzas.)